A thought concerning the ID debate
I was reading breakpoint the other day and Chuck Colson was talking about the ID defeat in Pennsylvania this week. Judge John E. Jones ruled that “it is unconstituional to teach intentional design as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom.” One of the reasons he gave is that “intelligent design is not science because its ideas can’t be either verified or falsified through normal scientific methods.” My thought was this: If that is the standard for whether or not ID can be taught in the public school, why is it not the standard for whether or not evolution can be taught in the public school. I would like for science to show me a single case in which macro evolution has been verified or falsified via scientific methods. There isn’t one. Science has many theories concerning evolution and they have scientific verification for pieces of the theory, such as micro evolution. However evolution remains nothing but a theory because it cannot be verified.
This becomes especially clear if you rewind evolutionist theory to its supposed beginning. The big bang. ID attempts to describe how everything got started. They claim that some inteligent force designed everything and got the ball rolling in the first place. Judge Jones objects to this because he claims there is no way to verify that it actually took place. Well I would like for him to show me the verification for there being a big bang. I would like for him to show me the verification that life can naturally begin from nothing. Using Judge Jones reasoning it makes sense that ID would not be allowed to be taught. What doesn’t make sense is that evolution is allowed to be taught.
Another couple thoughts on the matter. First of all, ID proponents are pushing for ID to be a required teaching in public schools. This seems to me to be asking a little much right off. I would think that a better tactic would be to seek rulings allowing the teaching of ID at all. Once this is accomplished then the legal precident of teaching ID will be established and the debate over whether or not it should be a required teaching can occur later.
Secondly, what evolutionists are most afraid of is that there be nothing but ID taught in the classrooms. From everything I have read this is not the intention of ID proponents at all. All that has been proposed is that both sides of the origin issue be presented. The only justification for evolutionists belief that ID will become the sole theory taught in public schools is if they have no confidence in evolutions ability to stand in a debate with any other theory. All that ID proponents want to see is both sides of the issue taught. I think its important that ID proponents do not over reach in this. It is wrong for the public schools to be only teaching one half of the debate so that evolution is portrayed as being more then a theory. It would be just as wrong if only intentional design was taught. It should be our desire that both sides of the debate be taught, not that ID would become the public school’s new evolution.